opn_confirm_changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the effect (cancels auto-rollback), the timing constraint, and the no-op behavior on newer versions. It also mentions the return type, which is helpful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (about 4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses clear sections for timing and version notes without any unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple confirmation tool, the description covers the purpose, when to use, the 60-second window, version dependency, and return type. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has a single required parameter 'revision' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description implies that revision comes from a prior write operation, mentioning that write tools return an empty revision on newer versions. This provides some context but does not explicitly define the parameter's format or how to obtain it, leaving a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool confirms pending firewall changes, distinguishing it from sibling write tools. It uses a specific verb (confirm) and resource (firewall changes), and the phrase 'cancelling the 60-second auto-rollback' adds specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs to use AFTER applying firewall changes and mentions the 60-second window. It also states that it's only relevant on OPNsense < 26.7, providing clear exclusions and alternatives (no-op on newer versions).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.